Readalots Enhanced Testing

[BigNoOne]

And, yet, there you are, on your own now asking for improvements ON THE QSC thread, whilst someone is tagging Tracy from the comfort of YOUR thread: look how bad Tracy is and look at the garbage he sells.
So much interest in enhanced testing, big boy is showing, that is bashing you for it, on a daily basis.
And look at the shills testing oils for endotoxins.
Yeeeeees

I am taking a holiday from this.
Thank you for everything

Lol. I think it’s great that the fuzzy furry gear is free of endotoxins.

I just wish it was produced to be free of the fuzzy and furry things too.

It strikes me as odd that we alleviate concern for the no-see-ems when the larger problem is literally right in front of our eyes in the form of threads bobbing around in our injectables.

I’ll have to remember to apologize to dear Tracey for insulting its poorly produced products.

Have a Happy Shillsgiving

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

View: https://youtu.be/5Np_pGfxJb8?si=jglgyDg8UceEkEFf

@SkankHunt

I was originally looking for a meme but this came up. The song did not disappoint

Oh yes, Spiff, I haven't forgotten I still have to answer you, will do at some point

I don't even remember

 

[iris]

@SkankHunt



I don't even remember

But I do, so I will do it.
Thanks

 

[readalot]

Give thanks to "Tracy" and @Qingdao Sigma Chemicals this Holiday Season.

R

Post in thread 'Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic'

Wednesday at 9:16 PM

Don't forget to count your tiny little blessings this Holiday Season.

Oils came in from last QSC promo. Floaters in multiple vials of ripped.

Even then, I will continue to re-filter all my gear, independent of the specific source.

...

• readalot

 

[musclesiege]

I understand the push for more testing and better purity. Like others have said you’re complaining to a drug dealer that their product is inferior, a discount dealer at that. UGL is providing an unmet need and there are risks that you can minimize through testing but the onus is on the buyer to test and take the risk of injecting. They provide tests just to sell more not because they care. Luckily this community has members that share experiences with sources and their compounds and share results of labs they want. This is like going to the dollar store and bitching at them they their product quality isn’t as good as Targets. Your quest is utopia but that will never exist with ugl being even less likely to get close.

While your crusade is in vain but a good dream there are others who are source worshipers. They are just as bad: it’s a business and you are not friends. They provide you a service and if you’re happy continue to buy it. They know the risks and the cost and the plus minus is worth it for them. So be it. But the big sources give 2 shits about you, if you got sick from injecting their compound they’re not paying your medical bills or sitting bedside. So pointing out deficiencies isn’t a personal attack it’s a critique just like leaving bad reviews at restaurant or for a product you bought that didn’t meet expectations.

At the end of the day the sources that try to do the best thing for the customers are the ones that will get the loyalty and repeat buys and their customers will pay more for it. If you want a deal you know the trade off and it’s always smart to test your gear. If readalot wants to grind the axe against them more that’s fine hats off, qsc needing better testing and improved product sure but they won’t change if people keep buying. Their responses aren’t helping their cause for sure. So if you’re pissed then stop buying or keep buying and stop bitching. It’s an individual decision, I prefer quality but I’m also willing to pay a premium for it and I landed where I did after a lot of reading, research and trial and error. I Found what source and compounds work best for me, what I’m willing to pay, and what compromises I’m not willing to make.

 

[Rippidy Dippidy]

ChatGPT will do it for you, for free:

Hey guys, it's Dirthand. I am starting this thread for @readalot. This man has been going around this forum preaching about his concerns and mission regarding heavy metals and other contaminants in the gear we use. I never really read much of what he wrote, but I always noticed that he catches a lot of flak for it. He always seems to take the criticism without resorting to personal insults, which I kind of respected.

Anyway, after his sabbatical (or whatever), he came back to the forum and saw that I had been making some gear and doing a bit of extra testing. He saw an opportunity. He contacted me and offered to reimburse me for some of the GCMS and sterility tests I had done on some testosterone I made. WTF? That was my thing. I guess he thought he needed to butter me up to get my help.

He wanted to know if he could get in on the new testing I did and add some extra tests, although I didn’t really care about endotoxins, heavy metals, residual solvents, etc. After thinking about it, I realized it wouldn’t hurt. If I could help give this man a little peace and/or joy with his obsession, why the hell not? As human beings, we should always try to lift each other up, not tear each other down (I know… I should take my own advice, huh).

So, I sent some stuff in for testing this morning. Among the samples was Boldenone Undecylenate raw that Mr. @readalot sent me several hundred dollars to have tested six ways from Sunday. I didn’t profit from this in any way, except for possibly getting one of my raws tested at no cost (although the man has offered to send money to my sister for the sterility testing she does for me, which I declined). My reward was just helping the poor guy out.

Everybody has been telling him to put his money where his mouth is, so that’s what he did. I’ll let him explain the tests being performed, and perhaps we’ll have the results by next week.

Peace,
-D-

You really just spell check a mans entire novel on a steroid forum?
That's a different type of bored

 

[readalot]

While your crusade is in vain but a good dream there are others who are source worshipers. They are just as bad:

R

Post in thread 'Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic'

Wednesday at 8:38 PM

That "respected" members show up in here for any other reason than to clean this cesspool of a thread up shows how weak MESO membership has become. The problem is in the mirror. There is no shame left.

Start over. Two camps.

(1) We like our almost Free Shit

(2) We give a Fuck

Ok, there is a third.

(3) I jump back and forth as convenient for me.

Where are the standards? How are you going to openly order (and support) from a vendor who allows floaters in their clearly not finished oils? What kind of example are you setting? Some noob comes here and sees this behavior...

• readalot

 

[readalot]

Definition of BAD

failing to reach an acceptable standard : poor; unfavorable; not fresh : spoiled… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[readalot]

Your DMs aren’t accessible. Tried to send a dick pic

After your exchange with "Tracy" I've now followed you. You know what that means lol. It better be a good one.

 

[readalot]

Nothing needs to be anonymous, end of story

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Brother. So coming back to this in context. There would have been no way I would have received the participation and info I got from the vendor in Project 3 if he thought I was going to disclose his name. He trusted me obviously.

My thinking is that if we want intel on the raws situation then we have to have a means to get the surveillance data. I don't want to penalize domestic brewers who have the decency to collect and share this data (see @RandallFlagg 's comments above). Pretty clear at this point that international vendors for finished oils ain't going to help (hope I am wrong).

Hence, you create a means for brewers to collect the quality data on raw materials without the fear of repercussion from customers or raws suppliers. And of course vendors will get the benefit of sharing data on their products if they disclose. If some data is suspect you've got to provide a means for the vendor to share without fear of repercussions as this thing is rolled out.

Make sense? Disagree? Feel free to tear up the whole thing. Appreciate your engagement.

After feedback received, my opinion is that surveillance data should be prioritized and let the vendors who value this set themselves apart. No requirement per se on batch testing which would penalize ethical vendors. Instead, let the vendors who endorse surveillance shine through.

 

[Ghoul]

@readalot

Has the LAL test protocol been requested? This is something the lab should be willing to supply to any customer, it's a standard expectation with the service.

I ask because I'm getting a little irritated with the "free from endotoxins" and "proves there's no need for testing" comments.

To be frank, I'm skeptical of results that are cleaner than what we'd typically see from a compounding pharma making Testosterone oils using a completely aseptic process in an FDA approved facility by techs wearing bunny suits.

 

[BigNoOne]

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Brother. So coming back to this in context. There would have been no way I would have received the participation and info I got from the vendor in Project 3 if he thought I was going to disclose his name. He trusted me obviously.

My thinking is that if we want intel on the raws situation then we have to have a means to get the surveillance data. I don't want to penalize domestic brewers who have the decency to collect and share this data (see @RandallFlagg 's comments above). Pretty clear at this point that international vendors for finished oils ain't going to help (hope I am wrong).

Hence, you create a means for brewers to collect the quality data on raw materials without the fear of repercussion from customers or raws suppliers. And of course vendors will get the benefit of sharing data on their products if they disclose. If some data is suspect you've got to provide a means for the vendor to share without fear of repercussions as this thing is rolled out.

Make sense? Disagree? Feel free to tear up the whole thing. Appreciate your engagement.

After feedback received, my opinion is that surveillance data should be prioritized and let the vendors who value this set themselves apart. No requirement per se on batch testing which would penalize ethical vendors. Instead, let the vendors who endorse surveillance shine through.

I don’t think “anonymous” is such a good idea. It gives one person or group too much power to take advantage of the opportunity. That’s a given. So even if they are benevolent, there’s always going to be a margin of people that district them. I vote “no” for “MESO’s police department”.

For this to work, UGLs need to sample the raws (as they do with HPLC) and if the raws aren’t good, the distributors can make good on it. We don’t care at all about the raws that aren’t used. If the distributors don’t make good on it, then the UGLs can decide whether they want to burn them up. It’s the UGLs that are going to use the testing reports to market their products. They are the ones that need to see the benefit. This way is a much more positive way to achieve your end result.

 

[readalot]

@readalot

Has the LAL test protocol been requested? This is something the lab should be willing to supply to any customer, it's a standard expectation with the service.

I ask because I'm getting a little irritated with the "free from endotoxins" and "proves there's no need for testing" comments.

To be frank, I'm skeptical of results that are cleaner than what we'd typically see from a compounding pharma making Testosterone oils using a completely aseptic process in an FDA approved facility by techs wearing bunny suits.

I tagged @janoshik in the other thread and doing again here. I'll follow up with them via email as well. You raise a good point and I have not vetted or seen the protocol. Excellent point.

 

[BigNoOne]

I tagged @janoshik in the other thread and doing again here. I'll follow up with them via email as well. You raise a good point and I have not vetted or seen the protocol. Excellent point.

It’s another analysis that if someone felt comfortable sending a sample to Eurofins, the lab would have no idea what the raw material was. They would just run the endotoxin analysis.

 

[janoshik]

Please, do not expect me to keep up with threads and discussions such as this, we're on limits of my capacity as it is.

Please, do request the protocol through the email and someone from my team will get it from the lab.

Cheers

 

[readalot]

I don’t think “anonymous” is such a good idea. It gives one person or group too much power to take advantage of the opportunity. That’s a given. So even if they are benevolent, there’s always going to be a margin of people that district them. I vote “no” for “MESO’s police department”.

For this to work, UGLs need to sample the raws (as they do with HPLC) and if the raws aren’t good, the distributors can make good on it. We don’t care at all about the raws that aren’t used. If the distributors don’t make good on it, then the UGLs can decide whether they want to burn them up. It’s the UGLs that are going to use the testing reports to market their products. They are the ones that need to see the benefit. This way is a much more positive way to achieve your end result.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. So you recommend the UGLs voluntarily share the data they want to on raws they used (and those they did not use - if they want to)? That removes the MESO Police angle.

So then it would be up to members to indicate what tests they want to see on the raws and finished products?

Am I understanding you correctly?

To your point, the UGLs can order raws anonymously if they desire hence they can share whatever data they want without fear of retaliation from raws distributors?

I appreciate your genuine constructive dialogue and feedback.

 

[readalot]

Please, do not expect me to keep up with threads and discussions such as this, we're on limits of my capacity as it is.

Please, do request the protocol through the email and someone from my team will get it from the lab.

Cheers

Understandable. Was tagging you for awareness and courtesy and will follow up professionally via email if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

It warmed my heart to catch up on this thread and see the common ground we were able to find in shitting on QSC. Sometimes it takes a floater-filled garbage oil vendor operating with impunity to put things in proper perspective.

So that's something to be grateful for over the Thanksgiving holiday, and a reminder that at the end of the day, we all want the same thing: safe AAS products. Our disagreements around the details are minor in the grand scheme of things.

 

[BigNoOne]

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. So you recommend the UGLs voluntarily share the data they want to on raws they used (and those they did not use - if they want to)? That removes the MESO Police angle.

So then it would be up to members to indicate what tests they want to see on the raws and finished products?

Am I understanding you correctly?

To your point, the UGLs can order raws anonymously if they desire hence they can share whatever data they want without fear of retaliation from raws distributors?

I appreciate your genuine constructive dialogue and feedback.

I just think it’s very negative to have a “hit squad” thread. We don’t slam the raws distributors for poor HPLC analysis right now so why would this be any different.

UGLs communicate with each other. It’s not that cutthroat. Word travels between them when a distributor is sending shitty product.

 

[janoshik]

Thank you.

If it's not something I can reply ad hoc, email is best.